ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
16 July 2014 (*)
(Intervention — 16 July 2014Interest in the result of the case — Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Request for confidential treatment)
In Case T‑413/13,
City Cycle Industries, established in Colombo (Sri Lanka), represented by T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and R.M. Bierwagen, lawyer,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1),
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of M. van der Woude (Rapporteur), President, I. Wiszniewska‑Białecka and I. Ulloa Rubio, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 August 2013, the applicant, City Cycle Industries, brought an action for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’).
2 By a separate document accompanying the application, the applicant requested the Court to decide the case under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. By decision of 8 October 2013, the Seventh Chamber of the General Court granted the request for an expedited procedure.
3 The contested regulation was adopted by the Council of the European Union following a request lodged by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) on behalf of In Cycles — Montagem e Comercio de Bicicletas Lda, S.C. EUROSPORT DHS S.A. and MAXCOM Ltd (‘MAXCOM’), three EU producers of bicycles.
4 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 October 2013, the European Commission sought leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the defendant. By order of 11 November 2013, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court granted the application to intervene.
5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, EBMA sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the defendant. By order of 17 December 2013, the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed that application.
6 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 19 March 2014, MAXCOM sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
7 MAXCOM’s application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
8 By document lodged on 7 April 2014, the applicant raised objections against the application to intervene.
9 The President of the Seventh Chamber referred the application to intervene to the Chamber.
Law
10 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case, other than cases between Member States, between EU institutions or between Member States and EU institutions, may intervene in that case.
11 The concept of an interest in the result of the case must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law and arguments put forward (see, to this effect, the order of 12 April 1978 in Amylum and Others v Council and Commission, 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77, ECR, EU:C:1978:81, paragraphs 7 and 9, and the order of 25 February 2003 in BASF v Commission, T‑15/02, ECR, EU:T:2003:38, paragraph 26).
12 As regards, more specifically, the field of anti-dumping, it cannot be seriously disputed that undertakings which were considered by the Commission to belong to the EU industry taken into account in the regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties, and which participated actively in the administrative procedure leading to the adoption of that regulation, have an interest in the result of the case (see, to this effect, the order of 5 May 2008 in Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council, T‑274/07, EU:T:2008:623, paragraph 11). Indeed, inasmuch as that regulation is adopted following the finding of an injury to the EU industry, it must be concluded that those undertakings may be affected by the annulment of the regulation in question (see, to this effect, the order of 16 February 2009 in Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, T‑192/08, EU:T:2009:37l, paragraph 15, and the order of 9 February 2012 in BP Products North America v Council, T‑385/11, EU:T:2012:7, paragraph 10). However, it should be noted that the case-law does not make the grant of leave to intervene conditional on participation by the applicant for leave to intervene in the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested measure (see the order of 11 February 2014 in Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council, T‑394/13, EU:T:2014:102, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).
13 In this instance, it must be stated, first, that, even if there is no specific evidence capable of establishing that MAXCOM participated actively in the subsequent stages of the investigation on the basis of which the Council adopted the contested regulation, it is not disputed that MAXCOM, first, is a bicycle producer in the European Union so that it belongs to the EU industry and, second, is one of the three undertakings on whose behalf EBMA lodged the request raising circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports originating in the People’s Republic of China.
14 Second, it must also be stated that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005 of 12 July 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2005 L 183, p. 1), and then maintained by Regulation No 990/2011, had initially been imposed by the Council following a finding of material injury to EU bicycle producers. Since the Council established, in recitals 93 to 96 of the contested regulation, that the imports at issue undermined the remedial effects of those duties in terms of quantity and price and that the quantities concerned were not negligible, the annulment, even in part, of the contested regulation is liable to affect MAXCOM’s interests (see, to this effect, the order in BP Products North America v Council, paragraph 14, and the order of 13 July 2012 in PT Musim Mas v Council, T‑26/12, EU:T:2012:387, paragraph 17).
15 In those circumstances, there is thus no doubt that the applicant for leave to intervene has an interest in the result of the case.
16 In the light of the foregoing, MAXCOM must be granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
17 Since the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union that is referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure was published on 21 September 2013, the application to intervene was not made within the six-week period laid down by Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure. MAXCOM’s rights will therefore be those accorded by Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
18 As MAXCOM made its application to intervene after the six-week period laid down by Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure had expired, it can receive, in due course, only a copy of the report for the hearing which will be drawn up in the present case, in order that it may submit any observations during the oral procedure.
19 The applicant and the Council request confidential treatment in relation to MAXCOM of certain information in the case-file.
20 The decision on the merits of the requests for confidential treatment made by the applicant and the Council should be reserved, given that those requests are liable to have an effect on the content of the report for the hearing that must be sent to MAXCOM. Accordingly, the applicant and the Council must first have the opportunity to identify any confidential matters contained in that report and MAXCOM must then have the opportunity to submit its observations in that regard.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. MAXCOM Ltd is granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union.
2. MAXCOM Ltd will be able to submit its observations during the oral procedure, on the basis of the report for the hearing which will be sent to it.
3. The Registrar shall send the report for the hearing to City Cycle Industries and the Council of the European Union in order that they may identify the matters in the report which they consider to be confidential.
4. The Registrar shall then send a provisional non-confidential version of the report for the hearing to MAXCOM Ltd and set a period for it to submit any observations on the requests for confidential treatment made by City Cycle Industries and by the Council of the European Union. The decision on the merits of those requests is reserved.
5. The Registrar shall invite the interveners to the hearing.
6. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 16 July 2014.
E. Coulon | | M. van der Woude |